Those Big Meanies! They Want to Say Something Not Nice!

Below are the final paragraphs from an eminently sensible piece on the Supreme Court decision Comrade Obama was ill-mannered enough to browbeat the Justices with during the SOTU.  It discusses the ridiculousness of believing polling data without investigating the inherent bias in the questions they pose.

Thanks once again to biggovernment.com for keeping a clear head when approaching matters of constitutionality when all their liberal colleagues in "big" media have lost theirs...

The question asked by ABC and the Washington Post was: “do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?”

No bias there. It sounds suspiciously close to Constitutional Professor Obama’s summation of the case: “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.”

I wonder how many realize that the first amendment protections on free speech were at stake in Citizens United?  And I’m not talking in a rhetorical sense either. The actual case was based on whether a corporation had the right to distribute a motion picture. The US district Court of DC had decided that “Hillary; the Movie” could not be distributed as a Pay-Per-View” movie, because it said unkind things about a US Senator and was produced by a Corporation.

All movies today are produced by corporations. Why even the Anti-Corporate propaganda film “The Corporation’ was produced by the Big Picture Media Corporation. (Who says “Irony is dead?’) Allowing the Federal Government the power to decide whether or not a movie can be viewed is something the entire nation should rally against. Arguments in front of the Court actually suggested that if this ruling were to stand, that corporations would not even be allowed to print newspapers or books if the FEC determined them to be “electioneering communication”

I think if someone over at ABC or the Washington Post had actually read the case, they might have come up with a little different question, like: ”Do you Support the recent Supreme Court decision that prevents the Federal Government from controlling which movies you can watch in your own home on Pay-Per-View?” You might have seen a little different result.

You would think Newspapers and  Broadcasting Corporations would be a little more sensitive about this stuff.

"It's not your business model that sucks, it's YOU that sucks..."

Andrew Breitbart said this about the mainstream media: "It's not your business model that sucks, it's YOU that sucks." at the Tea Party Convention this weekend in Nashville.  (It occurs in the clip below about 30 seconds from the end, but it's only a couple of minutes long and worth watching!)

Breitbart, who heads up the website www.biggovernment.com, which has caught like wildfire over the last year for being one of the few places outside of talk radio and Fox news that you can get the other side to the propaganda that the CNN/MSNBC/NBC/CBS/ABC, NY Times, etc. spew, was a bit raw in his assessment of them, but accurate!  They wonder why they are dying, body parts being left in the street, viewership and listenership 1/5th of what Fox's is, and they think it's that they need a "news business model" to deal with the internet, and mobile media, etc.  While they are contemplating their navels and anguishing over whether or not to charge for internet access to their websites, Breitbart et. al. are out there committing journalism and succeeding.

The original post on biggovernment.com is here, but here's the clip.  He concluded by saying:

“If you don’t start reporting the truth I will organize a protest in New York City on Madison Avenue and you won’t be able to escape to the Hamptons for the weekend.”


HAH!!!!  Go get 'em Andrew!!!!!